Who's the greatest left handed batsman of alltime?

[Perm]

Bradman also showed, like almost all former players turned hypothetical "selector with access to a time machine", a marked preference for players he had played with, or against. He certainly wasn't alone in doing so, but I disagreed with several of his selections in his book.

Bradman did indeed have a liking for picking players he played with or against, hence his decision to give Don Tallon the gloves.

Now correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't Richie Benaud's All Time XI a team that he himself would want to play with. That doesn't necessarily mean he thinks they are the best in that particular position, but players he would enjoy playing with, hence his decision to include himself at #8 I think.

 

[pasag]

If we're talking about the Benaud's DVD here, he didn't include himself and iirc it didn't have any mention of his favourites or who he would rather play with, rather who he thought were the greatest. I'd put the DVD in and watch it again but cbf

 

[Perm]

If we're talking about the Benaud's DVD here, he didn't include himself and iirc it didn't have any mention of his favourites or who he would rather play with, rather who he thought were the greatest. I'd put the DVD in and watch it again but cbf

We must be talking about different teams then, because I'm pretty sure that Benaud picked an All Time XI, or something similar, stating that his criteria was who he wanted to play with, not who he thought was the best.

 

[pasag]

This one?

 

[Perm]

This one?

Nah, I'm pretty sure I've read another of his XI's online that had him in there somewhere, mainly because he would have wanted to play with that team. Either that, or I'm completely out of my mind

 

[Engle]

GPollock did have a somewhat substandard series in the ROW XI vs Eng, but so did B.Richards and R.Kanhai. Many stars go thru this. He did do well against the Rebel WIndian tours even at an advanced age, which contained some fiery fast bowlers.

Maurice Leyland is another worthy of mention.

Lara and Sobers exude batting ingenuity. My sense is that Lara's genius was a tad greater than Sobers.
Either way, willing to accept either one, but barely. Not overwhelmingly.

 

[Richard]

Nah, I'm pretty sure I've read another of his XI's online that had him in there somewhere, mainly because he would have wanted to play with that team. Either that, or I'm completely out of my mind

He certainly did - not sure whether he picked himself in the team, but it was certainly a team he would have most liked to reprisent him, whether or not he was actually playing within.

Evidently, Gelman knows of another, one which I like you had previously been unaware of.

 

[Richard]

Neil Harvey would make a fair few All Time XI's, while Arthur Morris probably wouldn't. Harvey>Border>Morris IMO.

Think Morris would be in with a great shout in an Aussie all-time-XI, and can't imagine Harvey would get into any team other than such, TBH.

BTW, I feel Border > Harvey myself, as I said in the last thread that was discussed. Agree completely with Hoitink's assessment (first paragraph only ).

 

[Richard]

I don't think I would agree with this. Sobers faced Lindwall, Miller, Trueman, Statham, Davidson, Snow, Lillee, Laker, Benaud, Gupte, Bedi, Chandrashekar and Underwood during his career. This is at least as impressive a list as Lara's opponents.

Far more impressive in fact.

You could add to that Fazal Mehmood, Graham Mckenzie, Ian Johnson, Prasanna, Venkitraghavan, Statham, Bob Willis, Vinoo Mankad and Tony Lock.

not exactly. These are the great/good bowlers lara would have faced in his career:

RSA: Pollock, Donald, Ntini
India: Kumble
Pakistan: Saqlain, Waqar, Wasim, Mustaq
NZL: Bond
Zim: Streak
Eng: Fraser, Gough, Caddick
SRL: Murali, Vaas
Aust.: Mcgrath, Gillespie, fleming, Mcdermott, Warne, Riffel, Macgill

Purely and simply, both faced some incredibly fine bowling and scored many superb knocks against such. Sobers, however, has IMO a fairly superior record, and certainly achieved the greater consistency. Lara, especially between 1997 and 2000, had his troubles the like of which Sobers rarely did.

 

[Richard]

Would you have rated Lara as highly as he is if his batting average was padded up by averaging 80 against Bangladesh and Zimbabwe over 30 tests?

No, but as I say, Bangladesh and post-2003-Zimbabwe are not comparable to 1950s India and Pakistan. Both countries clearly deserved Test-status from the moment they were given it, as in fact did most. Bangladesh never have and Zimbabwe should have lost it after WC2003.

From their very first Tests India and Pakistan possessed very fine players, even a great player or two - and I don't mean good, I mean top-notch. Bangladesh's nearest have been Mohammad Rafique and Mashrafe bin Mortaza and Zimbabwe haven't had one since Andy Flower and Murray Goodwin (plus Neil Johnson in ODIs, though those aren't the subject here). What's more, since 2003 they've hardly even had any decent ones (like Heath Streak, Grant Flower, Alastair Campbell, Guy Whittall, Henry Olonga, the Strangs and Mpeulolo Mbangwa).

Substandard sides dragging down Test-cricket has been exceptionally rare until recently. The only case in Sobers' career was this series against New Zealand, and as you see deducting it (which should be done as NZ were categorically not Test-class then) actually improves his record, not worsens it.

 

[Perm]

Think Morris would be in with a great shout in an Aussie all-time-XI, and can't imagine Harvey would get into any team other than such, TBH.

BTW, I feel Border > Harvey myself, as I said in the last thread that was discussed. Agree completely with Hoitink's assessment (first paragraph only ).

I won't pretend to be any expert on Neil Harvey, far from it, but the way that many players of his era rate him has obviously influenced me to the point where he could be rated above Border and often finds himself in the very top echelon of Australian batsman, higher than Border.

 

[archie mac]

I won't pretend to be any expert on Neil Harvey, far from it, but the way that many players of his era rate him has obviously influenced me to the point where he could be rated above Border and often finds himself in the very top echelon of Australian batsman, higher than Border.

People who watched both always thought Harvey the better, never stumped despite going right down the wicket to play the spinners, must have been something special.

Still I think I would choose Border if I wanted to save a match

 

[Matt79]

We must be talking about different teams then, because I'm pretty sure that Benaud picked an All Time XI, or something similar, stating that his criteria was who he wanted to play with, not who he thought was the best.

Benaud wasn't in the XI he picked on the DVD, that was the greatest, and the only spinner he selected was Warne.

Its entirely likely, given his decades in the media, that he's selected more than one XI, and that he was at some stage asked to pick a team he'd like to captain, or at least play with.

The other point is that often players pretending to be selectors-with-access-to-a-time-machine are told that they should include themselves in the team. Perry did that with Bradman - his one stipulation to Bradman was that Bradman himself should be in at #3, included to prevent an obvious flaw in the team if Bradman wasn't in it, or accusations of Bradman being an egotistical sod if he did select himself.

 

[Ikki]

I won't pretend to be any expert on Neil Harvey, far from it, but the way that many players of his era rate him has obviously influenced me to the point where he could be rated above Border and often finds himself in the very top echelon of Australian batsman, higher than Border.

You shouldn't do that though, Harvey has more of an aura than Border.

 

[SJS]

It always has been tough to rate the stylist versus the trench fighter. The technically perfect against the efficient and effective. The Azaharuddin against the Amarnath or in this case the elegant Neil Harvey against the pugnacious Alan Border.

A similar debate arose a few years ago with both Tendulkar and Steve Waugh at close to the peak of their respectiveand very considerable prowesses.

We will always have our own inclinations and chose accordingly. A technically inclined old foggy like yours truly would ;ean on one side and someone more inclined towards the end result might think differently.

Its really not an easy thing to do. If we stick to our own perspectives, as we tend to most often we can never see how things could be other than how we see them. Thus I would always consider Harvey superior (from what I have heard about his batting from old cricketers and read of him of course) to Border. But frankly I would be guilty of giving weightage to those aspects of a batsman's attributes that most appeal to me. It doesnt in anyway reduce the strength of the counter argument which sees Border (or Waugh in the other example) as the man to look to in a fight to death.

I have wondered attimes why we donthave the perfect amalgam of a batsman who has everything, the technical perfection of Hobbs, the flamboyance of Viv Richards, the elegance of Mark Waugh, the fighting spirit of Border or Steve Waugh and the relentless pursuit of the peak of Bradman.

I suppose the personalities needed for these attributes are different and a Laxman or Mark Waugh is perhaps incapable of being a Bradman.

Maybe we should juct be grateful for having seen both Mark Waugh and Steve Waugh instead of wondering if they were one and not twins could we have had perfection

 

[haroon510]

i would keep it simple...

every time lara walked to that ground with his bating kits on.... he was the only hope for WI on that match... with all that pressure.. he not only played well but dominated the oposition's bowling attack.. that is something that makes him better than any of other guys up there on that list.. if sobers was better...WI had a better team then... Lara was part of the team that was pretty weak and he was the only hope and the only person between win and lose..

i voted for lara for that reason.

i want to mention saeed anwar's name also.. after lara he was the one that i have always enjoyed watching...to add further he wasn't in the same leaguge as guys like lara, sabors, pollock.. but speaking of left hander batsmans it is hard to skip his name for me...

 

[Richard]

i would keep it simple...

every time lara walked to that ground with his bating kits on.... he was the only hope for WI on that match... with all that pressure.. he not only played well but dominated the oposition's bowling attack.. that is something that makes him better than any of other guys up there on that list.. if sobers was better...WI had a better team then... Lara was part of the team that was pretty weak and he was the only hope and the only person between win and lose..

i voted for lara for that reason..

When Lara first became a regular, other names in the team included Desmond Haynes, Richie Richardson and Gus Logie. Throughout his career he has also played with Sherwin Campbell, Shivnarine Chanderpaul, Jimmy Adams and Carl Hooper.

He has hardly been the only outstanding batsman during his time.

 

[Richard]

It always has been tough to rate the stylist versus the trench fighter. The technically perfect against the efficient and effective. The Azaharuddin against the Amarnath or in this case the elegant Neil Harvey against the pugnacious Alan Border.

A similar debate arose a few years ago with both Tendulkar and Steve Waugh at close to the peak of their respectiveand very considerable prowesses.

We will always have our own inclinations and chose accordingly. A technically inclined old foggy like yours truly would ;ean on one side and someone more inclined towards the end result might think differently.

Its really not an easy thing to do. If we stick to our own perspectives, as we tend to most often we can never see how things could be other than how we see them. Thus I would always consider Harvey superior (from what I have heard about his batting from old cricketers and read of him of course) to Border. But frankly I would be guilty of giving weightage to those aspects of a batsman's attributes that most appeal to me. It doesnt in anyway reduce the strength of the counter argument which sees Border (or Waugh in the other example) as the man to look to in a fight to death.

I have wondered attimes why we donthave the perfect amalgam of a batsman who has everything, the technical perfection of Hobbs, the flamboyance of Viv Richards, the elegance of Mark Waugh, the fighting spirit of Border or Steve Waugh and the relentless pursuit of the peak of Bradman.

I suppose the personalities needed for these attributes are different and a Laxman or Mark Waugh is perhaps incapable of being a Bradman.

Maybe we should juct be grateful for having seen both Mark Waugh and Steve Waugh instead of wondering if they were one and not twins could we have had perfection

Superbly summed-up.

Tendulkar = Stephen Waugh (in their respective correct times) pretty much for me, BTW.

 

[Richard]

I won't pretend to be any expert on Neil Harvey, far from it, but the way that many players of his era rate him has obviously influenced me to the point where he could be rated above Border and often finds himself in the very top echelon of Australian batsman, higher than Border.

People did a similar thing with Dennis Lillee - doesn't mean I can't assess such things plus other data and form the opinion that Border was superior to Harvey.

Which is what I've done.

 

[archie mac]

People did a similar thing with Dennis Lillee - doesn't mean I can't assess such things plus other data and form the opinion that Border was superior to Harvey.

Which is what I've done.

And you would be wrong again